Service Law:
Dismissal from service – Of a sailor in Naval forces – Pursuant to proceedings against the sailor – Upon complaint from superior officer alleging that the sailor used physical force against him – Application before Armed Forces Tribunal – Tribunal substituted the punishment of dismissal from service to the punishment of his detention for 75 days – Appeal by State to Supreme Court – Held: In the facts of the case, the order of Tribunal setting aside the dismissal order on the ground that the punishment was disproportionate to the misconduct, is within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal – Supreme Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction would be slow in interfering with the substituted punishment, unless the order of Tribunal is found to be arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious – The view taken by the Tribunal in the present case is patently not illegal – Navy Act, 1957 – s. 45(a) – Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 – ss. 15(6) and 30.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1.1 In terms of Section 15 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, the Tribunal exercises jurisdiction, powers and authority against any order, decision, finding or sentence passed by a court martial or any matter connected therewith or incidental thereto. Sub-section (6) of Section 15 of the Act empowers the Tribunal to substitute the findings of the court martial which includes the disciplinary proceedings under the said Act (Section 3 (f) of the AFT Act) and also to interfere if the sentence is found to be excessive, illegal or unjust. [Para 10] [110-D-F]
1.2 The Commanding Officer who was on the high seas with the Sailor and the superior officer was aware of the extent of misconduct of the Sailor. None of the three witnesses have deposed regarding striking of the superior officer by the Sailor. The superior officer has not made himself available before the Investigating Officer or the Executive Officer. It has also come on record that the superior officer has been found to be guilty for using abusive language against the Sailor. Even though, the superior officer has used abusive language but the Sailor was not expected to retort and hit the superior officer. The conduct of the Sailor cannot be condoned in any manner. [Paras 9, 11 and 12] [110-D; 111-E-F]
1.3 The order passed by the Tribunal to set aside the dismissal is within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal finding that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the misconduct. This Court in appellate jurisdiction under Section 30 of the Act would be slow in interfering with the substituted punishment, unless the order passed by the Tribunal is found to be arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious. The view taken by the Tribunal is not patently illegal warranting interference in the present appeal. [Para 13] [111-G-H; 112-A]
2. However, it is directed that the respondent shall be reinstated within two months but shall not be entitled to any back wages from the date of dismissal till reinstatement but he shall be entitled to computation of all consequential benefits including pay fixation. [Para 14]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.